FA No. 121 of 2013. Case: Blue Moon Communications and Credit Pvt. Ltd. Vs Thomas Mathew. Goa State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case Number:FA No. 121 of 2013
Party Name:Blue Moon Communications and Credit Pvt. Ltd. Vs Thomas Mathew
Counsel:For Appellant: N.G. Kamat, Advocate and For Respondents: Party-in-Person
Judges:N.A. Britto, J. (President) and Vidhya Gurav, Member
Issue:Consumer Law
Citation:II (2014) CPJ 147 (Goa)
Judgement Date:April 08, 2014
Court:Goa State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

N.A. Britto, J. (President)

  1. This appeal has been filed by the OP in CC No. 109/2010, and, is directed against order dated 11.11.2013 by which the OP has been directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1 lac with interest at the rate of 9% from 18.11.10 till payment and the complainant has been directed to return the furniture, on refund being made. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal.

  2. The complainant is an M.Sc. and holds a Ph.D. The complainant purchased a new flat in August 2010 and visited the establishment of the OP on 15.9.2010 and saw 3 or 4 types of bedroom sets and chose what is known as Atessa double bed with storage, two Atessa bedside tables, one Atessa wardrobe, one Atessa dressing table and one mattress viceroy plus and paid a sum of Rs. 1 lac. The furniture ordered by the complainant was based on the sample exhibited in the showroom of the OP. The furniture was delivered to the complainant on 18.9.2010 along with some complementary items such as two pillows, one bed sheet and one mattress protector.

  3. Soon thereafter on 22.9.2010 the complainant wrote a letter to the OP stating that the furniture supplied was of inferior quality and of very low grade, and, it was a mixture of some teak wood, wood low quality plywood and MDF (Medium Density Fibre Board); the dressing tables and side tables were of very cheap quality and had no veneer finish unlike the wardrobe of the same bedroom set, though the complainant was told that they were using only teak wood. Complainant also stated that there was a dirty smell of the cheap wood and there were no handles provided to any of the drawers. Complainant stated that the complainant was charged for teak wood furniture but on delivery the complainant had found that the furniture was a mixture of all types of wood, compressed hard board, and cheap plywood and was charged for teak wood and called upon the OP to take back the entire bedroom set and refund his money of Rs. 1 lac and further stated that in case the complainant did not receive a positive reply within three days of the receipt of the letter, the complainant would be free to approach the Consumer Court.

  4. The OP sent a reply dated 26.9.2010 in which the OP categorically stated that they had delivered the items which were selected and approved by the complainants in their showroom, as per order copy No. 519 dated 15.9.2010.

  5. The complaint came to be filed on 18.11.2010, and, what the complainant stated in the complaint is that upon observation, he had found that the items supplied were not matching the quality which they had seen in the showroom. Complainant further stated that they were told by the OP that OP uses only teak wood and plywood for all furniture, whereas, they found a combination of MDF, other cheap wood and plywood of poor quality in the bedroom set which was supplied (there is no mention of teak wood at all). Complainant also stated that the compressed wood--MDF--that was fixed on the rear part of the wardrobe was partly damaged at the time of installation and developed severe fungal attack from the very next day. Complainant also stated that there was veneer finish only inside the wardrobe but such finish was lacking for all storage drawers, dressing table drawers and bed side table drawers unlike the wardrobe, though it was a complete set with the same name and looks externally. Complainant also stated that as promised the OP did not provide handle fittings for any of the drawers.

  6. The complainant, therefore demanded, by way of relief, that the inside of bed...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL